PDA

View Full Version : Lowest ranked player gets first round 1 point bye?



SHump
15-01-2010, 01:20 PM
In entering players (using swissperfect) for an event, I got to 13 players and went to see what the first round pairing would look like. One player was unrated but SP gave that person the first round 1 point bye.

In looking at how other events are paired, for round 1, it seems to be the lowest ranked person gets this. I am using SP without any of the frills turned on, so was wondering which is correct, or do I have to manually change the first round pairings for this 'lowest ranked player gets the bye' rule?

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2010, 02:50 PM
SP treats an unrated player as having rating zero. However if you have an idea of the strength of the unrated player you should enter that as a notional "rating" for them for pairing purposes. (Better to underestimate than overestimate if in doubt.)

If you want to give someone else the round 1 bye, assign it to that player before doing the draw for round 1, you can do this by clicking on the player on the player list and there is a space where you can enter a round 1 bye.

SHump
15-01-2010, 03:23 PM
Thanks Kevin - I guess my question is really - is there a RULE that the lowest rated player gets the Bye? Your pairing for the Aust juniors seems to follow that, for round 1 and 2, for instance, from what has been published. Perhaps you have made a notional judgement of each player's strength, as you discussed, but if I was faced with say 3 unrated players, then I would probably just enter them as a zero rating and let SP place them where it does.

And thanks for answering the question in the midst of the tournament!

Go the 6 juniors from Ranges!

Ian Rout
15-01-2010, 03:52 PM
Thanks Kevin - I guess my question is really - is there a RULE that the lowest rated player gets the Bye? Your pairing for the Aust juniors seems to follow that, for round 1 and 2, for instance, from what has been published. Perhaps you have made a notional judgement of each player's strength, as you discussed, but if I was faced with say 3 unrated players, then I would probably just enter them as a zero rating and let SP place them where it does.

And thanks for answering the question in the midst of the tournament!

Go the 6 juniors from Ranges!The rules as I recall them (I haven't done manual pairings for a while) the player who gets the bye is the player who downfloats from the lowest score group. In the first round this is necessarily the lowest rated player but in later rounds, because of the requirement that as many players as possible get their preferred colour, it may not be the case.

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2010, 04:14 PM
Perhaps you have made a notional judgement of each player's strength, as you discussed, but if I was faced with say 3 unrated players, then I would probably just enter them as a zero rating and let SP place them where it does.

We haven't done that in the Aus Junior because trying to make sense of the various NSWJCL, Chess Kids and other ratings systems that some of them had ratings on and convert those to ACF for seeding purposes was one of those things that I intended to do but eventually couldn't find the several hours necessary to do justice to the task!

I think at all-junior level it is very difficult to adequately estimate the rating of unrated players, and reasonable to put them at the bottom if the tournament is long and none are known to be especially strong. In short adult tournaments where an unrated player has already played an event it is usually pretty easy to estimate a rating for them, and quite important not to let a strong player get a round 1 bye just because they are unrated.

Garvinator
15-01-2010, 07:46 PM
Shump, I think the type of answer you are looking for is where someone is able to quote a rule about the situation.

The general fide swiss pairing rules do not say directly who is meant to get the bye in the first round ie either it is the lowest rated or lowest ranked.

But the next section from the handbook- Basic Principles of Swiss System Tournaments, General Pairing Rules do cover it clearly.
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=84&view=article

8. Awarding the Bye

8.1 If in any round the number of participants is uneven, the Bye is awarded to the player with the lowest rank in the lowest score-group.

8.2 A player may receive the Bye only once. A player who has won a point by default may not be awarded a Bye subsequently.

8.3 A player awarded the Bye scores one point for the round. He does not have an opponent in that round and is considered to have had no colour.
I hope this answers your question.

Small general comment- it is amazing how sloppy wording can ruin a clear defintion. In 8.2, I wish they had used may not be awarded THE bye subsequently, instead of saying a bye.

The bye refers to the person left over when numbers are odd. A bye for us here in Australia can either be THE BYE PERSON or a person wanting a half point bye.

Thunderspirit
15-01-2010, 09:32 PM
In entering players (using swissperfect) for an event, I got to 13 players and went to see what the first round pairing would look like. One player was unrated but SP gave that person the first round 1 point bye.

In looking at how other events are paired, for round 1, it seems to be the lowest ranked person gets this. I am using SP without any of the frills turned on, so was wondering which is correct, or do I have to manually change the first round pairings for this 'lowest ranked player gets the bye' rule?


I have a slightly different spin on this. It is certainally true that SP gives the bottom seeded player the bye, though especially in the first round the lowest rated player gets the bye. This lowest rated player (in the bottom score group) should get the bye unless there are no rated players on the bottom score group. This is done so that unrated players get as many games as quicky as possible so they gain a rating. It is also not much fun entering your first event only to have a bye in round one. It's like saying "Welcome to chess, but we think you can't play so you can have the first game off". Not very encouraging.

As for giving unrated players a guess rating I am dead against this. I would never, ever give a player a rating on the pairings unless they have one. An unrated player is unrated and should be listed as such at the bottom of the pairings. If a player has a FIDE rating but no ACF that's different. I hate when organisers ask a player to play a couple of games of blitz to guess a rating. It is also deceptive for the players in the tournament who when looking at the pairings and see a rating that in reality does not exist. It is very unfair on that player.

As a player gets a rating after nine games (two tournaments), listing a player as U/R is not a big deal.

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2010, 10:16 PM
I have a slightly different spin on this. It is certainally true that SP gives the bottom seeded player the bye, though especially in the first round the lowest rated player gets the bye. This lowest rated player (in the bottom score group) should get the bye unless there are no rated players on the bottom score group. This is done so that unrated players get as many games as quicky as possible so they gain a rating. It is also not much fun entering your first event only to have a bye in round one. It's like saying "Welcome to chess, but we think you can't play so you can have the first game off". Not very encouraging.

It is especially a problem with unrated players with surnames beginning with Y or Z since the next sort after rating is usually alphabetic.


As for giving unrated players a guess rating I am dead against this.

Opinions vary but it is worth noting, I think, that the FIDE official pairing system states:


If no reliable rating is known for a player the arbiters should make an estimation of it as accurately as possible before the start of the tournament [..]

It says "estimation", not guess. I use things like the following:

* True performance rating from previous results. If an unrated player has recently played, say, a 7 game tournament then this is probably no worse than a real rating that is years out of date in terms of predicting results.

* Knowledge of a player's strength based on casual games played against them, but scaled down because competition is a different environment.

* If they claim to have an "internet rating" of a certain figure then use that figure minus say 400.

* If they claim to have a rating provided by any Chessmaster series program, halve it. :lol:


I hate when organisers ask a player to play a couple of games of blitz to guess a rating.

I don't think organisers should do this unless they can do it well before the tournament (and even then it should not be blitz). It is placing the player under unreasonable pressure. If the organisers really don't have a clue about player strength then putting them at the bottom is reasonable.


As a player gets a rating after nine games (two tournaments), listing a player as U/R is not a big deal.

It can be if they are strong and the draw pairs them against another strong player in round 1 adversely affecting that player's start to the tournament by giving them a more difficult first round game than everyone else.

SHump
15-01-2010, 10:59 PM
OK, now I am just getting confused. Just try this with SP - 12 players with a rating, and one more player with a zero rating. Automatic pairing for round 1 - ta-da! the zero rated player gets the bye.

So this seems to be going against what the rule as quoted by Garvin and others have said SP will do - ie give the lowest rated the bye in round 1 (or any round for that matter).

Any help appreciated. And I do appreciate the feedback to date, just that it seems to be contradicted by the software, sigh.

Garvinator
15-01-2010, 11:14 PM
So this seems to be going against what the rule as quoted by Garvin and others have said SP will do - ie give the lowest rated the bye in round 1 (or any round for that matter).Swiss Perfect is acting exactly as the rule I quoted. Please note in the rule I quoted it says LOWEST RANKED, not lowest rated. Apologies for the extra emphasis on ranked ;) but the difference is important and the word ranked vs rated is the main bit.

In your scenario, the unrated player is at the bottom of the field, so that player is the lowest ranked and so gets the bye in the first round.

Ian Rout
16-01-2010, 06:43 AM
As for giving unrated players a guess rating I am dead against this. I would never, ever give a player a rating on the pairings unless they have one. An unrated player is unrated and should be listed as such at the bottom of the pairings. If a player has a FIDE rating but no ACF that's different. I hate when organisers ask a player to play a couple of games of blitz to guess a rating. It is also deceptive for the players in the tournament who when looking at the pairings and see a rating that in reality does not exist. It is very unfair on that player.The trouble with this is that by not giving them a rating you are accepting the default of zero which is the same as giving them one yourself, except less accurately. It just gives the arbiter the cop-out of saying "I didn't do it sir, I was just unfortunate to be nearby when Swiss Perfect did it."

In any event the arbiter is not giving a player a rating in any meaningful sense, just determining where in the seeding order to place the player for pairing purposes - there is no greater moral authority for seeding a player last than, say, fifth-last, and somewaht less if the player is probably not the weakest.

SHump
16-01-2010, 03:33 PM
Thanks for that last message Garvin - how did you know I need glasses to read?:) So it looks like I will have to read up more on the swiss system before I ask the difference between rating and ranking. No, do not tell me, let me find out for myself.

However, due to my human condition of wanting to conform, the upcoming event I have been entering names for, then is, it seems, somehow working differently with SP than say the current Aust juniors. For instance, in each round of the U18 boys, including the first round, the player with the bye is rated (has a non-zero rating) whereas for my event the player with the bye has a zero rating. And so it looks like the Aust juniors is one counterexample to the rule as stated. Does Kevin have an opinion on this (or others)?

I could try entering a quick version of the Aust juniors U18 (surname, rating) into my SP and then see if SP comes up with the pairings as published.. could the size of the field (13 in my case) be somehow causing a difference? I realise there can be many reasons why the pairing can differ (byes, withdrawals) but this is not apparent through the first few Aust junior rounds. Like I said, this is my one counterexample to what my SP is pairing - I will probably be able to find others without too much difficulty.

Note I am not trying to have a go at Kevin or anyone else really - just trying to get my SP to conform to how I see other pairing operate..

Garvinator
16-01-2010, 03:53 PM
Thanks for that last message Garvin - how did you know I need glasses to read?:) So it looks like I will have to read up more on the swiss system before I ask the difference between rating and ranking. No, do not tell me, let me find out for myself. I will answer this question if you have not replied in a couple of days ;)


However, due to my human condition of wanting to conform, the upcoming event I have been entering names for, then is, it seems, somehow working differently with SP than say the current Aust juniors. For instance, in each round of the U18 boys, including the first round, the player with the bye is rated (has a non-zero rating) whereas for my event the player with the bye has a zero rating. And so it looks like the Aust juniors is one counterexample to the rule as stated. Does Kevin have an opinion on this (or others)?

I could try entering a quick version of the Aust juniors U18 (surname, rating) into my SP and then see if SP comes up with the pairings as published.. could the size of the field (13 in my case) be somehow causing a difference? I realise there can be many reasons why the pairing can differ (byes, withdrawals) but this is not apparent through the first few Aust junior rounds. Like I said, this is my one counterexample to what my SP is pairing - I will probably be able to find others without too much difficulty.

Note I am not trying to have a go at Kevin or anyone else really - just trying to get my SP to conform to how I see other pairing operate..If you are trying to compare the pairings used in the Aus Juniors to what sp auto generates, there is only one small problem with this. At the Aus Juniors they might not be using Swiss Perfect as their main pairing program. I would not be surprised if swiss manager is being used.

SHump
16-01-2010, 04:37 PM
Yes Garvin I can see that using SM over SP may create different but just as legal pairings. So maybe I will not so much care about the 'difference' - vive la difference!

I can see that score-groups, rankings and floaters all feature prominently in the FIDE rule. Rating however does get a mention in 14.1, a brief worked example, and it says that:


14. Pairing Round One
14.1 If the number of players is uneven the lowest rated player in the Pairing List is given the Bye.

So perhaps SP and SM interpret this differently for a zero rated player - SM using the player with a non-zero rating, SP using the player with a zero rating.

Garvinator
16-01-2010, 05:20 PM
So perhaps SP and SM interpret this differently for a zero rated player - SM using the player with a non-zero rating, SP using the player with a zero rating.In the first round the answer for all pairing programs that pair by using the dutch pairing rules will be the same. It will pair the lowest RANKED person as the bye. No exceptions.

To have the lowest rated person as the bye when they are not the lowest ranked requires the arbiter to over-ride the pairing program and give the bye to the lowest rated person.

In later rounds there can be a difference between what the dutch pairings give as the correct pairings and what SP does.

I am sure if this next explanation is incorrect then it will be corrected ;)

In later rounds SP automatically gives the bye to the lowest ranked person who is still eligible for the bye ie has not taken a half point bye, has not had the bye previously, for instance. Then it will pair the rest of the players accordingly.

What should happen is that the players are still paired from highest score down through the field till you reach the last score group. Then, trying to match all possible colour preferences, the bye in that score group is given to the player who helps achieve colour preferences the best.

So lets say in the final score group you have seven players. Out of these seven players the bye goes to the player who allows the rest of the score group to have as many colour matches as possible. This may mean it is not the lowest ranked person in that score group at all. In fact it could be the highest ranked player in that group of seven.

I know this can be confusing and probably it would be much simpler if the bye just went to the lowest ranked person in each round. But that is not how the dutch pairing rules work and there is a method to the madness.

Bill Gletsos
16-01-2010, 08:34 PM
In later rounds SP automatically gives the bye to the lowest ranked person who is still eligible for the bye ie has not taken a half point bye, has not had the bye previously, for instance. Then it will pair the rest of the players accordingly.I have never seen SP do this. SP simply pairs from the top score group down.

What should happen is that the players are still paired from highest score down through the field till you reach the last score group. Then, trying to match all possible colour preferences, the bye in that score group is given to the player who helps achieve colour preferences the best.this is what SP does.

Garvinator
16-01-2010, 09:29 PM
I have never seen SP do this. SP simply pairs from the top score group down.
this is what SP does.
Normally I trust your opinion on pairings without question, but on this one I am not so sure as I have seen differences between SM5 and SP and the difference has been that SP has chosen the lowest ranked person as the bye, ignoring colour preferences.

I seem to even recall analysis of this subject previously on this forum. Can you provide some more information for your opinion?

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2010, 12:01 AM
Normally I trust your opinion on pairings without question, but on this one I am not so sure as I have seen differences between SM5 and SP and the difference has been that SP has chosen the lowest ranked person as the bye, ignoring colour preferences.Can you provide an actual example.

I seem to even recall analysis of this subject previously on this forum. Can you provide some more information for your opinion?Can you provide any information to support your opinion?

SHump
17-01-2010, 04:01 PM
Garvin - I think I am right, in as much as I am still confused that is if SP and SM can give different pairings for say round 1 but they are also conforming to the rules..

Your posts have said this (my emphasis):

In the first round the answer for all pairing programs that pair by using the dutch pairing rules will be the same. It will pair the lowest RANKED person as the bye. No exceptions.
and from the FIDE handbook

8.1 If in any round the number of participants is uneven, the Bye is awarded to the player with the lowest rank in the lowest score-group.
However, I have found also from the handbook, as a worked example:

14. Pairing Round One
14.1 If the number of players is uneven the lowest rated player in the Pairing List is given the Bye.

So your 'no exceptions' seems at odds with the 14.1 example, and I still think SP and SM must interpret 'lowest rated' differently, though I do not have an SM program to try it out on.

As an aside, the FIDE handbook lists the following endorsed programs:

the list of endorsed programmes and their respective capabilities:

1. PETUNIA Dutch System
2. GMB Lim System
3. SWISS CHESS Dutch System
4. SVBOSS Dutch System
5. DUBOV
6. BURSTEIN System (GA '98)
Which of these is SP (Swissperfect) and SM (Swiss Manager)? Just curious.

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2010, 04:12 PM
Garvin - I think I am right, in as much as I am still confused that is if SP and SM can give different pairings for say round 1 but they are also conforming to the rules..

Your posts have said this (my emphasis):

and from the FIDE handbook

However, I have found also from the handbook, as a worked example:


So your 'no exceptions' seems at odds with the 14.1 example, and I still think SP and SM must interpret 'lowest rated' differently, though I do not have an SM program to try it out on.You are confusing two differente sets of Swiss pairing rules.

You should bew following the Swiss Rules here (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=83&view=article).

These are referred to as the Dutch Rules and the sections relevant to the bye are A5, B1,F2 & F4.

Swiss Perfect, Swiss Master and Swiss Manager all do pairings according to the Dutch Rules.

As an aside, the FIDE handbook lists the following endorsed programs:

Which of these is SP (Swissperfect) and SM (Swiss Manager)? Just curious.
That list of Programs is outdated.

Denis_Jessop
17-01-2010, 04:21 PM
The 2 mainly used and FIFE-approved programs are Swiss Master and Swiss Manager. Swiss Perfect has been adopted by the ACF but is not FIDE-approved. As fas as I know, its author has not submitted it for FIDE approval.

DJ

SHump
17-01-2010, 04:54 PM
Bill - thanks for the reference to the other section of the handbook, and now I can see why it is hard to follow the FIDE rules. Your reference took me to:

04.1. Swiss System Based on Rating
Approved by the 1992, 1997 and 1998 General Assemblies.

and the other one that Garvin (and I) was quoting was:

04.2. Regulations for Swiss System Tournaments
Short title: "FIDE Swiss Rules"
Approved by the General Assembly of 1987.
Amended by the 1988, 1989, 1997, 1998 General Assemblies and 1999 Executive Board.

At the overview level, the handbook is divided into:
04. FIDE Swiss Rules
04.1. Swiss System Based on Rating
04.2. Regulations for Swiss System Tournaments
04.3. The DUBOV Swiss Pairing System (Based on Rating)
04.4 The Burstein Swiss Pairing System (Based on Sonnenborn-Berger and Buchholz)

So it would be easy to look at 4.1 or 4.2 for your 'rule' to apply, or am I missing something?? 4.2 sounds more like it, since it at least has the short tile "FIDE Swiss Rules". Just confusing, really.

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2010, 04:59 PM
Bill - thanks for the reference to the other section of the handbook, and now I can see why it is hard to follow the FIDE rules. Your reference took me to:


and the other one that Garvin (and I) was quoting was:I am not sure why Garvin quoted from there given F4 of the Dutch Rules covers who gets the bye in the first round.

At the overview level, the handbook is divided into:
04. FIDE Swiss Rules
04.1. Swiss System Based on Rating
04.2. Regulations for Swiss System Tournaments
04.3. The DUBOV Swiss Pairing System (Based on Rating)
04.4 The Burstein Swiss Pairing System (Based on Sonnenborn-Berger and Buchholz)

So it would be easy to look at 4.1 or 4.2 for your 'rule' to apply, or am I missing something?? 4.2 sounds more like it, since it at least has the short tile "FIDE Swiss Rules". Just confusing, really.You really should just be looking at 04.1 and only section 21 of 04.2 as that is the system used by Swiss Perfect, Swiss Manager and Swiss Master.

Bill Gletsos
17-01-2010, 05:03 PM
The general fide swiss pairing rules do not say directly who is meant to get the bye in the first round ie either it is the lowest rated or lowest ranked..Actually F4 in the Dutch Rules makes it clear the bye goes to the lowest ranked.

Garvinator
17-01-2010, 06:11 PM
Actually F4 in the Dutch Rules makes it clear the bye goes to the lowest ranked.So it does and of course I should have remembered this.

I quote F8 to people often enough ;)


F.4 Because all players are in one homogeneous score bracket before the start of round one and are ordered according to A2 the highest player of S1 will play against the highest player of S2 and if the number of players is odd the lowest ranked player will receive a bye.

SHump
18-01-2010, 08:50 AM
OK, so I want to give a concrete example of what I am assuming Swiss Manager (SM) gives and what Swissperfect (SP) gives:
First SM, extracted from the Aus Junior U18 round 1:


21 Jule, Sebastian QLD 1701 [0] 1:0 Mackintosh, Kirk VIC [0]
22 O'Shaughnassy, Jack VIC [0] 0:1 Stahnke, Alexander QLD 1701 [0]
23 Tan, Kevin NSW 1697 [0] 1:0 Taminsyah, Aston WA [0]
24 Dommersnes, Brett VIC 187 [0] 1:0 BYE
And from SP, a make up event:

Smith, John 123 : Jones, Mary 456
Blo, Joe 0 : BYE
So why does Dommersnes (rated 187) get a bye with SM (neither O'Shaughnassy nor Taminsyah who are rated 0) and why does Blo (rated 0, not Smith, rated 123) get one with SP? So does SM interpret 'lowest ranked' as the lowest player with the lowest (non-zero) rating and SP interpret lowest ranked as a player with a rating of zero?

If SM and SP are both 'approved' then is this OK to have the differing interpretation?

Garvinator
18-01-2010, 10:32 AM
OK, so I want to give a concrete example of what I am assuming Swiss Manager (SM) gives and what Swissperfect (SP) gives:
First SM, extracted from the Aus Junior U18 round 1:

And from SP, a make up event:

So why does Dommersnes (rated 187) get a bye with SM (neither O'Shaughnassy nor Taminsyah who are rated 0) and why does Blo (rated 0, not Smith, rated 123) get one with SP? So does SM interpret 'lowest ranked' as the lowest player with the lowest (non-zero) rating and SP interpret lowest ranked as a player with a rating of zero?

If SM and SP are both 'approved' then is this OK to have the differing interpretation?How do you know that those are the SM generated pairings? They may not be. I have not tested it because I do not know if Swiss Manager is being used at all. I only speculated based on the practice at the Aus Champs.

I have just inputted the players into Swiss Manager for the 2010 Qld Australia Day Weekender, which has only one player unrated. Swiss Manager has given the first round bye to the unrated player:


Bo.SNo. Name Pts Pts Name SNo.

1 1 BERBIC Mirsad 0 0 AL ZAHER Louay 10
2 11 TAN Kai 0 0 JURD Sebastian 2
3 3 GUTIERREZ Rodrigo 0 0 DE VERE Cameron 12
4 13 GUO Charlie 0 0 TAN Justin 4
5 5 LIU Yi 0 0 D'ARCY Michael 14
6 15 ROGERS Jim 0 0 LESTER George 6
7 7 LOVEJOY David 0 0 SLATER-JONES Tom 16
8 17 ZELICH Ivan 0 0 WELLER Tony 8
9 9 SELNES Hamish 0 0 GUO Nelson 18
19 KOTTAHACHCHI Anagi 0 Bye

Anagi is the unrated player. All the rest have ratings.

Desmond
18-01-2010, 11:03 AM
OK, so I want to give a concrete example of what I am assuming Swiss Manager (SM) gives and what Swissperfect (SP) gives:
First SM, extracted from the Aus Junior U18 round 1:

And from SP, a make up event:

So why does Dommersnes (rated 187) get a bye with SM (neither O'Shaughnassy nor Taminsyah who are rated 0) and why does Blo (rated 0, not Smith, rated 123) get one with SP? So does SM interpret 'lowest ranked' as the lowest player with the lowest (non-zero) rating and SP interpret lowest ranked as a player with a rating of zero?

If SM and SP are both 'approved' then is this OK to have the differing interpretation?
Just a guess. maybe there's a difference in the software between a null value and a 0 value.

SHump
18-01-2010, 11:04 AM
How do you know that those are the SM generated pairings? They may not be. I have not tested it because I do not know if Swiss Manager is being used at all. I only speculated based on the practice at the Aus Champs.

Hi Garvin - I was supposing, without any evidence to the contrary, and not being able to try out SM, that SM was the difference between the two sets of results. Thanks for clearing that up.

So now the questions that remain are a) what is being used for Aus Juniors, and b) why the differences to what it looks like SP and SM do? Really these are the same questions I started with...

SHump
18-01-2010, 11:06 AM
Just a guess. maybe there's a difference in the software between a null value and a 0 value.
Hi Boris - I have tried a null (as imported from the SP rating files for an unrated player) versus a 0 (zero) for SP and it came up with the same result.

Desmond
18-01-2010, 11:14 AM
Hi Boris - I have tried a null (as imported from the SP rating files for an unrated player) versus a 0 (zero) for SP and it came up with the same result.
OK :)

Garvinator
18-01-2010, 11:33 AM
Hi Garvin - I was supposing, without any evidence to the contrary, and not being able to try out SM, that SM was the difference between the two sets of results. Thanks for clearing that up.

So now the questions that remain are a) what is being used for Aus Juniors, and b) why the differences to what it looks like SP and SM do? Really these are the same questions I started with...
The seemingly most logical and most likely answer is that the chief arbiter chose to have the lowest rated player as the bye. All evidence so far points in that direction.

There are a few arguments for doing this, even though it is strictly against the dutch pairing rules, especially in a Junior tournament, or where you have many unrated players.

1) Some of the group of unrated players may actually be able to 'play a bit', especially to a standard higher than the lowest rated person
2) Those unrated players who do stay near the bottom of the standings for the entire tournament will most likely get THE bye at some stage in the tournament anyways.
3) As mentioned earlier, having the lowest rated person as THE bye means that all the unrateds get a rated person in the first round.
An issue with this is that if you have quite a few unrated in your tournament ie 10 unrated in a 30 player field- unrated player number 1 will receive a much harder pairing in round one than unrated player 10. The only reason unrated number 1 received the much harder pairing is that they were born with a last name starting with A or B as unrated players are sorted by last name.

Bill Gletsos
18-01-2010, 03:10 PM
I can confirm that the Chief Arbiter manually assigned the bye to the lowest rated player in the AUS Junior rather than letting it default to the lowest ranked (i.e. unrated player).

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2010, 02:57 PM
Yes, he did it partly because there is no guarantee that the unrated players will be weaker than the lowest rated player (indeed in this event they're usually quite strong), and also because the more games an unrated gets the better in terms of getting then a rating. The alphabetical order thing was, I think, a part of it too.

I agree with him.